Why going back to the moon?

[ar81]

Phillip Ball published an article at Nature News an article where he claims that Apollo program was the result of an irrational, optimistic and not down to Earth expectation that caused excess of useless efforts in space exploration, for going to the moon is useless.

Is it senseless to retake space exploration?
Why didn't space exploration make future perspectives of president Johnson about a future benefit for mankind with space exploration?

Is Ball right or wrong?

 

[darian]

Phillip Ball published an article at Nature News an article where he claims that Apollo program was the result of an irrational, optimistic and not down to Earth expectation that caused excess of useless efforts in space exploration, for going to the moon is useless.

Is it senseless to retake space exploration?
Why didn't space exploration make future perspectives of president Johnson about a future benefit for mankind with space exploration?

Is Ball right or wrong?

People misunderstand the word "exploration." Exploring Space is done because we want to challenge ourselves. It's a way to express ourselves proving we can do anything and we wonder what is it that we can do and can we do it safely. Apollo proved thats a "yes." To say it's irrational, and optimistic well thats like saying we failed to do something that needed to be done in a certain form. Thats wrong Apollo was accomplished simply from the interest and dedication of the public. We worked hard enough so we were able to accomplish the goals.

 

[pattersoncr]

Why going back to the moon?

Because it's there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ball is also wrong from another aspect: Probes are not automatically better as humans. If you compare the three mars rovers with the Apollo program, the astronauts managed to achieve more scientific goals in their short time on the moon, as the rovers together with more mobility.

Probes can go, where humans can't go. But where humans can go, they surpass the performance of probes by large - also at high costs. The question is, do the costs scale... that is a hard question and I think, flags and footprints are not automatically cost effective science.

But a lunar station could. When the astronauts don't spent 90% of the mission with travel, the economy looks much better for the astronauts.

 

[Bullethead]

Phillip Ball published an article at Nature News an article where he claims ... going to the moon is useless.
Is Ball right or wrong?

He's wrong. There are 2 very good practical reasons to go to the moon:

#1. Militarily
The moon is the ultimate high ground. If you own the moon, you own the Earth. It's as simple as that, and therefore no power can let a rival occupy the moon uncontested. I think the main reason we didn't build missile bases on the moon after Apollo was because the Soviets gave up on going there. But now with the Chinese determined to go, we have to respond. So I figure there will be world-killing military bases on the moon under both flags before too long. The 2nd Cold War is about to begin.

#2. Helium3
From what I understand, the moon is covered in helium3 from the solar wind. This stuff apparently is MUCH easier to use as a fuel for fusion reactors than any form of hydrogen, and could potentially be a solution for Earth's energy needs. All well and good, except that everybody will want some. So I figure that once somebody proves this is correct, there will be a huge landgrab on the moon as various powers try to claim the bulk of the stuff for themselves. This will no doubt result in wars, both on the moon and down here. So all the more reason to expect military bases up there.

There are also, of course, some good scientific reasons to go back to the moon. But most of the science stuff can be done by lunar military personnel or even the strip miners. I figure the science aspect will be used to drum up support for the military projects.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Not to mention the technologies developed for long-term stays. Imagine if we found HUGE deposits of lunar ice and placed some permanently-lit solar arrays to melt and pump the deposits of ice to a settlement, then electrically split other ice to provide LH2 and LOX so craft could leave Earth with only a fraction of the fuel. Not only that, but transporting the fuel from the Moon to LEO requires less DV than Earth to LEO.

 

[Dr Pepper]

#1. Militarily
The moon is the ultimate high ground. If you own the moon, you own the Earth. It's as simple as that, and therefore no power can let a rival occupy the moon uncontested. I think the main reason we didn't build missile bases on the moon after Apollo was because the Soviets gave up on going there. But now with the Chinese determined to go, we have to respond. So I figure there will be world-killing military bases on the moon under both flags before too long. The 2nd Cold War is about to begin.

Understandable, but due to the Outer Space Treaty, we (and China, as well as a crapload of other nations) are "not allowed" to use the moon for anything other than "peaceful purposes." This means that if the USA and China did try that, the UN (damn them) would have one hell of a hissy-fit. Then there would be things like sanctions and all that crap. It would just go pretty badly.

However, I can see "quieter" things going on there. I doubt there will be "world-killing machines" placed up there any time soon, but there almost certainly will be some smaller form military technology from both us and the Chinese placed on the moon. At first, it may just be serveillance equipment (ELINT, SIGINT, ect.), but it could very well lead up to actual smaller-scale weapons emplacements on or beneath the surface.

But, if for some reason or another the UN get's ignored by the "international community" or removed from the picture all together, your theory could very well come true.

 

[Moonwalker]

All the speculation what could be done on Moon are as old as the Apollo program. But nothing of it happened and I think it won't too past 2020. The "Moon Mars and beyond" dream just was political reasoning of Bush in my point of view. I think we won't even see Ares V lifting off at all.

And just remember the visions of people, engineers and scientists when Apollo was on its way (Mars in 2000 and so on...). And then look what happened especially when the congress have had enough of wasting money for Moon landings: The Shuttle was born while nobody was talking about the Moon and Mars again. It isn't really less expensive today to fly to the Moon again and even more trying to get a little bit of water and Helium 3 and what so ever. There are so many great plans and visions again already but still no money (especially for Ares V). So I think manned space flight will continue to happen in LEO even in the 2030's and no Mars in the 2050's less than ever...

PS: There also never won't be any military things on the Moon. Such speculations also took place already when Apollo was on its way. But nobody really will ever pay to place weapons on a place almost 400.000 km away where they make no sense while it is easy to place weapons where they are made and used for: to fight and to defend places on Earth and not on the Moon

 

[Moonwalker]

All the speculation what could be done on Moon are as old as the Apollo program. But nothing of it happened and I think it won't too past 2020. The "Moon Mars and beyond" dream just was political reasoning of Bush in my point of view. I think we won't even see Ares V lifting off at all.

And just remember the visions of people, engineers and scientists when Apollo was on its way (Mars in 2000 and so on...). And then look what happened especially when the congress have had enough of wasting money for Moon landings: The Shuttle was born while nobody was talking about the Moon and Mars again. It isn't really less expensive today to fly to the Moon again and even more trying to get a little bit of water and Helium 3 and what so ever. There are so many great plans and visions again but still no money (especially for Ares V). So I think manned space flight will continue to happen in LEO even in the 2030's and no Mars in the 2050's less than ever...

PS: There certainly also won't be any military projects on the Moon. Weapons almost 400.000 km away make no sense while they are placed on Earth for WAY LESS money to fight and defend places on Earth and not on the Moon

The Moon is a useless desert which moreover just is too far away for almost anything in my point of view. Although it was interesting to land on to see if it works to finally say "yeah, we did it" Probes will be much more advanced in future and do stuff on places we won't visit in person...

 

[Bullethead]

But, if for some reason or another the UN get's ignored by the "international community" or removed from the picture all together, your theory could very well come true.

The UN is the biggest joke in politics. It cannot diffuse crises and it cannot force nations to act for the common good. It serves only as a forum from which to posture for the camera and as a conduit for huge amounts of public money to find its way into a few personal bank accounts. The UN was deliberately set up to be impotent, and so it has been proven over and over. Nations conduct their real business between each other directly and completely ignore UN resolutions as it suits them, with no consequences. The only time UN resolutions are followed through is if nations were already going to do that anyway. At best, the UN is simply a way for the real powers to bully the weak without being held directly responsible.

The history of multinational arms reduction treaties is also no grounds for confidence. Go back and see how much good the naval treaties of the 20s and 30s did. Today's situation is much more like it was back then than it is like the Cold War. When it was just 2 superpowers, they could make deals. But as the number of participants increases, the more the regional concerns of the smaller nations come to dominate over global concerns. Plus, the more nations that are involved, the more likely one of them is to be a cheater.

 

[Dr Pepper]

The UN is the biggest joke in politics. It cannot diffuse crises and it cannot force nations to act for the common good. It serves only as a forum from which to posture for the camera and as a conduit for huge amounts of public money to find its way into a few personal bank accounts. The UN was deliberately set up to be impotent, and so it has been proven over and over. Nations conduct their real business between each other directly and completely ignore UN resolutions as it suits them, with no consequences. The only time UN resolutions are followed through is if nations were already going to do that anyway. At best, the UN is simply a way for the real powers to bully the weak without being held directly responsible.

It seems we share the same viewpoint. However, they have the influence (which is mainly based on ignorance or fear) to be one hell of a pain in someone's side if he breaks their "laws," major member or not. Not to mention the fact that the major powers can "oust" one from their group and gang-up on it, with the support of just about everyone else.

The history of multinational arms reduction treaties is also no grounds for confidence. Go back and see how much good the naval treaties of the 20s and 30s did.

Indeed, but there was already a war (or conflict, if that's what you want to call it) going on, and there was no pressure from the "international community." There was already a belligerent (or two). We are at peace right now. That does change how a country acts (mostly, unless it's run by a psychopath or a total idiot). You'd want to stay out of a war as long as possible while simultaneously building your armed forces (and even using them).

Now, there is no major war/conflict between us and China, nor between us and any major opponent. The introduction of Iran could throw this off balance, but so far, it's only been limited conflict in a relatively small portion of the world.

Today's situation is much more like it was back then than it is like the Cold War. When it was just 2 superpowers, they could make deals.

I disagree (only slightly). The 20s and 30s saw a conflict between much more major nations (Germany was rather powerful, and so were the Western European nations she was attacking). Right now, it's one superpower against two non-power groups (Muslim Extremists and Al Qaeda, neither of which are even in control of any nation or backed by a major populace).

But as the number of participants increases, the more the regional concerns of the smaller nations come to dominate over global concerns. Plus, the more nations that are involved, the more likely one of them is to be a cheater.

True, that is becoming apparent right now.

There is an old saying that, although I cannot remember where or when I heard it, went something like: "War is only illegal if you lose." I guess what I'm trying to get across is that we are not at war with any spacefaring nation, so any attempt at "breaking" the "space laws" would be much more noticeable and frowned upon, and potentially acted upon.

 

[Urwumpe]

It seems we share the same viewpoint. However, they have the influence (which is mainly based on ignorance or fear) to be one hell of a pain in someone's side if he breaks their "laws," major member or not. Not to mention the fact that the major powers can "oust" one from their group and gang-up on it, with the support of just about everyone else.

I think personally, the UN should get disbanded. It puts so much emphasis on pleasing every tyrant in the world, that it fails to do what it was supposed to do.

That the human rights council is dominated by people, who have not even read the declaration of human rights, is easily visible when looking which country alone gets sanctioned more than all others.

That the ICC now shows more courage as the UN, is a pretty strange world. The UN and AU troops had not been even powerful enough to defend themselves before the arrest warrant, and now they complain about the ICC (and the UN security council, BTW) making things worse by creating pressure.

I think it is time for a new start. Can the UN work, when it puts unity over it's ideals?

 

[James.Denholm]

I think personally, the UN should get disbanded. It puts so much emphasis on pleasing every tyrant in the world, that it fails to do what it was supposed to do.

That the human rights council is dominated by people, who have not even read the declaration of human rights, is easily visible when looking which country alone gets sanctioned more than all others.

That the ICC now shows more courage as the UN, is a pretty strange world. The UN and AU troops had not been even powerful enough to defend themselves before the arrest warrant, and now they complain about the ICC (and the UN security council, BTW) making things worse by creating pressure.

Plus, the egg-shell blue uniforms the millitary guys wear look down-right silly.

 

[Urwumpe]

Plus, the egg-shell blue uniforms the millitary guys wear look down-right silly.

As formal dress pretty OK, but the helmets tell me: Shoot me. The worst which can happen is a committee on your actions.

 

[Moonwalker]

Ups, double post. I thought I lost the first one. Anyway, one of it can be deleted. Just choose

 

[Bullethead]

Indeed, but there was already a war (or conflict, if that's what you want to call it) going on, and there was no pressure from the "international community." There was already a belligerent (or two). We are at peace right now. That does change how a country acts (mostly, unless it's run by a psychopath or a total idiot). You'd want to stay out of a war as long as possible while simultaneously building your armed forces (and even using them).

Hmmm. In 1921 when the 1st naval treaty was signed, WW1 was over and I think even the Russian Civil War was winding down. There were the usual local conflicts going on here and there, but for the major powers, it was as close to peace as it ever gets. The point of the treaty was to keep the erstwhile WW1 allies from turning on each other as they scrambled for position in the power balance of that day, which was MUCH different than it had been in 1914.

The treaty really didn't work so well at this. It did nothing to remove the rivalries between the signatories, so conflict was inevitable and some WW1 allies were indeed enemies in WW2. And the "battleship holiday" imposed by the treaty was primarily responsible for the development of the even more destructive aircraft carrier. This was apparent by the time they tried to do a 2nd naval treaty, which was even less successful.

Now, there is no major war/conflict between us and China, nor between us and any major opponent.

That is exactly why the moon will be militarized. Rivalries exist long before wars, and wars are just what happen when those rivalries go on long enough. Arms races only happen in peacetime, as both sides try to enforce their claims, protect their interests, and intimidate their rivals. When war comes, they fight with what they've built during the arms race.

There is an old saying that, although I cannot remember where or when I heard it, went something like: "War is only illegal if you lose." I guess what I'm trying to get across is that we are not at war with any spacefaring nation, so any attempt at "breaking" the "space laws" would be much more noticeable and frowned upon, and potentially acted upon.

We are, nevertheless, rivals with several spacefaring powers, one of which is advertising its developing space combat prowess. This will necessarily result in a space arms race, and the moon will inevitably be caught up in it.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Arms races only happen in peacetime, as both sides try to enforce their claims, protect their interests, and intimidate their rivals. When war comes, they fight with what they've built during the arms race.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Over the past 150 years, the peak of military technology development coincided with the biggest wars. Remember the birth of the automatic rifle, fighter plane, advanced of the field medicine, evolution of the bomber aircraft over the WWII, jet engines... It's too much to count all. Only a hypothetical scenario of a doomsday atomic war leaves no time for the sides to develop their arsenals any further and they would have to fight with whatever they had before the war.

 

[Moonwalker]

The moon is the ultimate high ground. If you own the moon, you own the Earth. It's as simple as that, and therefore no power can let a rival occupy the moon uncontested. I think the main reason we didn't build missile bases on the moon after Apollo was because the Soviets gave up on going there. But now with the Chinese determined to go, we have to respond. So I figure there will be world-killing military bases on the moon under both flags before too long. The 2nd Cold War is about to begin.

Building missle bases on the Moon does not make any sense and is unpayable anyway. That's why we didn't see missle bases on the Moon. We don't even have missle bases orbiting the Earth. It's nonsense in my point of view and obviously also in the point of view of politicians.

There also won't be any war happening on the Moon. The required amount of money will make such science fiction wars impossible anyway. If it all, a second cold war would take place on Earth. But I don't think that this will happen.

Also, China had only two manned space flights within 6 years by the way while the last one was three years ago. They are ages away (at least 16 years as they say which obviously is underestimated) from landing on the Moon manned. And they plan to build an orbital station too. And doing unmanned Moon missions too and this and that... bla bla ... I wouldn't take it too seriously. They have enough problems on Earth. I also wouldn't take NASA's new vision too seriously. It's the time of great political announcements and blabbing. But almost nothing of it is going to happen "really" any time soon. Economy and money will talk a different language in future rather than doing some useless expensive stuff on the Moon once again.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Building missle bases on the Moon does not make any sense and is unpayable anyway. That's why we didn't see missle bases on the Moon. We don't even have missle bases orbiting the Earth. It's nonsense in my point of view and obviously also in the point of view of politicians.

Why not? If your nukes are stationed in space, they have already gone half way to the target. They are much less vulnerable to various form of missile defence. Such weapons aren't apparently there because putting nuclear wepons to space had been banned by international treaties all that time long - mostly because it makes up an ideal weapon of a first strike and less useful for a retaliatory strike.

 

[Urwumpe]

Why not? If your nukes are stationed in space, they have already gone half way to the target. They are much less vulnerable to various form of missile defence. Such weapons aren't apparently there because putting nuclear wepons to space had been banned by international treaties all that time long - mostly because it makes up an ideal weapon of a first strike and less useful for a retaliatory strike.

They are also much more vulnerable to attacks - you only need kinetic energy. They are always visible, so people know where they are.

Also you violate almost all treaties against such weapons.

Also, the deployment of the warheads is not as easy. You may want to put all of them on the country, not loose many for the counter strikes against the missile platforms. But Earth rotates under the orbit of the platform.